Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 745 posts

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#331

Post by rsync »

duaneb wrote: post #211
xnull2guest wrote: post #158

Unfortunately the Net Neutrality 'debate' was another lose-lose situation for the United States. What we wanted wasn't for the big telecom duopoly to be forced to either run their business as a tiered service or as a regulated utility. What we wanted was for the US Government to exercise its Anti-Trust capabilities and bust the universally hated Comcast and Time Warner into a bunch of small companies, and set "Goldil…

It's not the job of the government to make companies less shitty, it's their job to protect the free market so OTHER companies can reduce the shittiness of e.g. comcast. This is just the first step. I'd also like to point out that splitting up Ma Bell hardly solved the problem.

"I'd also like to point out that splitting up Ma Bell hardly solved the problem."

Really ? I'm not an expert, but one item that comes to mind is that my children have never heard the term "long distance" and never will. That's pretty swell.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#332

Post by worklogin »

grecy wrote: post #324
keslag wrote: post #316

Okay, as a Canadian with no dog in this fight, this seems to be a good thing for America. So I'm having a very hard time understanding the opposition. The arguments for title II are pretty clear and logical. The arguments against include giving up personal freedoms (You live in America, you've been giving up most of your personal freedoms willing for the pack two decades) and this isn't one of them. There are some co…

It's pretty common for Americans to argue against things that are actually good for them. The dis-information campaigns funded by billions in contributions are very good at convincing people universal healthcare, etc. would actually be bad. Of course, every other developed country knows the truth.

What a snide remark. Why should people expect that NN is either good or bad? Or that the FCC has done the completely right thing?

I'm entirely pro-NN in the way I understand NN to be. That is, that it specifically bans QoS setting for particular parties. This means an ISP couldn't QoS Netflix higher or lower than anything else. QoS can still be used for TYPES of traffic across the board, but not per company/person. Is this what the FCC did? Is this all they'll do?

And yes, the apparent secrecy in the ruling is a bit disconcerting.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#333

Post by odiroot »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #254
api wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is America, where infrastructure is communism. I mean if we provide good infrastructure, pretty soon we'll be sending people to gulags or something like they do in Europe and Canada.

I'm an European and it's the first time I hear about us being sent to gulags for making infrastructure that actually works . BTW. In Poland, infrastructure was all fine until they started to privatize it. Now our trains barely work, and public transport companies like to compete with each other by showing which one sucks at doing their job more...

Unfortunately I have to agree in full. I no longer live in Poland but that was my last impression of the country.

Especially the trains went down the drain after privatization and split into multiple companies.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#334

Post by throwaway150219 »

surrealize wrote: post #234
rayiner wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing. This is revisionist history. Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option."[1] There's plenty of people who are pro-net neutrality who were skeptical of Title II. That's why they originally threw their support behind the FCC's last attempt at net neutrality, which tried to impose neutrality without reclassification. The EFF o…

> ("Mark Cuban faults ‘Silicon Valley groupthink,’ says FCC broadband rule a mistake") Ha, cable network owner Mark Cuban is totally unbiased, of course.

Please don't be critical of the creator of broadcast.com.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#336

Post by anigbrowl »

rayiner wrote: post #103
chetanahuja wrote: post #76

Wow.. This thread has turned into an astro-turfing campaign for the anti-NN advocates. The main gist of the the new regulations is the classify broadband access as a utility under Title II of Communications act. This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing... and a necessary thing seeing how there's virtually no competition in broadband access for most people in the US. Reading commen…

> This has long been generally agreed upon by reasonable people as a good thing. This is revisionist history. Up until very recently, Title II was the "nuclear option."[1] There's plenty of people who are pro-net neutrality who were skeptical of Title II. That's why they originally threw their support behind the FCC's last attempt at net neutrality, which tried to impose neutrality without reclassification. The EFF o…

Reasonable people can disagree about Title II, but there's no getting around the fact that just in the last few weeks the issue has been turned into 'Obamanet' as a political football.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#337

Post by MereInterest »

rayiner wrote: post #314
r00fus wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As soon as it was deregulated, Verizon and AT&T began upgrades. But before then, they weren't going to build upgrades to networks that any competitor could borrow at wholesale value. Given the great intentions that such bastions of corporate ethics like AT&T and Verizon have, is it possible that they simple held out until the got what they wanted?

What exactly is "unethical" about not investing tons of money in something that isn't going to yield the kind of profit your investors want? People act like Verizon and AT&T have a moral obligation to spend money on telecom infrastructure as a public good at minimal price above cost.

Having agreed to make such an expansion, and having been paid for it, it is unethical to choose not to without returning the money.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#338

Post by hgsigala »

paulhauggis wrote: post #2

What scares me is that there are 700 regulations (that we haven't even seen) that got passed. I wouldn't sign a contract without reading it (and having the person on the other side telling me all of the reasons why I should), and neither should you. But apparently, the general population (and many here) will. I watched the entire live broadcast and the pros played only on emotion (safety, helping out the disadvantage…

take the time to read this

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015...

Order forbears 27 provisions of title II and over 700 associated regulations. Will not impose rate regulation, tariffs, burdensome administrative filing requirement or network sharing requirements. The proposed Order would apply fewer sections of Title II than have applied to mobile voice networks for over twenty years.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#339

Post by daughart »

droopybuns wrote: post #277
daughart wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point does "prioritization" effectively become blocking? People navigate away from websites that take a long time to load or have advertisements.

Is your use of the Internet limited to websites? If you play video games, use realtime video services like facetime, or use a VPN for mission critical work, do you really want your traffic flows to be identical to something that delivers content to a rendering engine? Different traffic has different requirements & performance characteristics. From a pure engineering perspective, this is a very poor decision and treat…

Interesting, but I'm more concerned about prioritization of Skype over FaceTime because Microsoft pays Comcast more than Apple.

Re: FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote

#340

Post by ubernostrum »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #287
ubernostrum wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't. Everything gets published. The vote on the rule change came after a public comment period. This thread is just full of HN's intellectually-challenged users waving their hands and saying "ooooOOOOoooo GOVERNMENT! SCARY GOVERNMENT! BE AFRAID OF SCARY GOVERNMENT! ooooOOOOoooo!"

So this doesn't scare you at all? The plan gives a Washington bureaucracy a blank check to decide how Internet service providers deploy and manage their networks, from the last mile all the way through the Internet backbone. Take interconnection as just one example. The plan states that the FCC can determine when a broadband provider must establish physical interconnection points, where they must locate those points,…

Doesn't scare me a bit, because I know the secret formula. Every night after I brush my teeth, I stand in front of the mirror and yell "LIBERAL FARTBONGO OBUMMER" five times; that magic incantation keeps the black helicopters from coming to force me to use the internet the way they want me to, and also protects my guns and repeals the entire income tax code.
Post reply on HN